Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[drron]

Of course Dubai is predominantly a Sunni nation.Maybe they are more afraid of the Iraqi government which is Shia.They probably know they have SAMs.

 

[eastwest101]

As an aside though, recent history tells us that most civilian aircrafts have been shot down by highly trained military personnel (Korean Air incident, USS Vincennes and Ukrainian army). So the risk seems to be "people operating missiles". A little bit like the NRA in the US "guns don't kill people"..."people kill people"

Oh I am not disagreeing with you there, but in all those cases the military personnel were in situations near active combat zones or mistaken entry into in highly militarized sensitive "prohibited airspace" such as KAL007, the capture of military equipment from various armed forces in the middle east by non government insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighters organizations follows the proliferation of most other weapons in the past from the simple gun through to more sophisticated rockets, missiles, tanks, helicopters and even aircraft.

I agree with your position though, its not only "what weapons" that should be part of a risk assessment, its "which people" as well.

On a different note - I am actually quite surprised that most airlines are happy/comfortable flying over the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea - with recent activity by China, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Phillippines there, it only needs someone to have a "bad hair day" and some miscommunication and poor training on one of those ships for a similar tragedy to occur.

 

[NM]

That'd be an airline that never leaves the gate.

or costs so much that nobody would purchase a ticket to fly with them.

 

[SeatBackForward]

On a different note - I am actually quite surprised that most airlines are happy/comfortable flying over the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea - with recent activity by China, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Phillippines there, it only needs someone to have a "bad hair day" and some miscommunication and poor training on one of those ships for a similar tragedy to occur.

Or how about Pakistan/India in Kashmir?

Interesting page on the topic, written after MH17

A straight route from Europe to Asia would take any commercial flight path over a number of these war zones. Diverting planes around these regions is like navigating around a maze and is not the answer. The downing of MH17 is the betrayal of the trust that no individual or group should ever attack a tin can full of innocents 33,000 feet in the air.

Flight Path from Europe to Southeast Asia is One Big No-Fly-Zone - mkenology

 

[boomy]

or costs so much that nobody would purchase a ticket to fly with them.

LY are doing their own risk assessments and are not depending only on foreign intelligence or so called "experts".
They are also investing heavily in security (60% sponsored by the government) and even have anti-missile system installed on their planes.
The tickets do cost a bit more but many people choose to pay extra because they know that in return they will fly the safest airline in the world.
Maybe MH can adopt a similar strategy to help bring back customer confidence.
I'm talking from a marketing point of view now, not saying MH necessarily neglected safely procedures.

 

[burmans]

Or how about Pakistan/India in Kashmir?

Interesting page on the topic, written after MH17

Flight Path from Europe to Southeast Asia is One Big No-Fly-Zone - mkenology

Nice picture but it appears some have a bee in their bonnet about MH only.

Interesting today to see the QF pilots dont much like their route either!

Qantas pilots fear missiles over Iraq, but costly diversions over war-torn country rejected | News.com.au

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Nice picture but it appears some have a bee in their bonnet about MH only.

Interesting today to se the QF pilots dont much like their route either!

Qantas pilots fear missiles over Iraq, but costly diversions over war-torn country rejected | News.com.au

Passengers should be given the option to cancel tickets, free of charge if it is true pilot(s) feel this way. At the very least, rather than simply say 'it is safe' there might be some of us appreciating a little transparency. Where is the information coming from that it's absolutely safe? How recent is the information? how often is the information be monitored for accuracy? Why are some airlines, based in the middle east, concerned about safety, but a foreign airline isn't?

Qantas insists 38-41,000 feet is safe. We know SAMs can reach 70,000 feet.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Where is the information coming from that it's absolutely safe?

Nowhere, as what you are apparently wanting is an impossibility. There is no air route in the world that anyone could say was "absolutely safe". There is risk in every flight and every air route.

What is required are value judgements, based on the available information. MH, SQ, LH and all the others flying over eastern Ukraine had no information that suggested that there was a quantifiably greater risk of doing so now than there was previously, or greater than the risk in flying over Afghanistan, Pakistan or a various other countries.

A crystal ball would be a wonderful investment for every airline - if only they could find one that was guaranteed foolproof.

 

[mannej]

That map does paint an interesting picture, showing that route planning is much more complex than just avoiding "conflict" areas.

With some of the comments being made about flying over these conflict areas, it would seem like the only "sensible" route would involve flying east to cut out each of these conflict areas.:idea:

 

[medhead]

LY are doing their own risk assessments and are not depending only on foreign intelligence or so called "experts".
They are also investing heavily in security (60% sponsored by the government) and even have anti-missile system installed on their planes.
The tickets do cost a bit more but many people choose to pay extra because they know that in return they will fly the safest airline in the world.
Maybe MH can adopt a similar strategy to help bring back customer confidence.
I'm talking from a marketing point of view now, not saying MH necessarily neglected safely procedures.

But i dare say they do rely on national intelligence experts.

While they do have such a system installed it is not that clear cut because the system itself is a weapon. Raising the point that civilian aircraft do not carry weapons and a comparison with national owned aircraft that do carry weapons.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Nowhere, as what you are apparently wanting is an impossibility. There is no air route in the world that anyone could say was "absolutely safe". There is risk in every flight and every air route.

What is required are value judgements, based on the available information. MH, SQ, LH and all the others flying over eastern Ukraine had no information that suggested that there was a quantifiably greater risk of doing so now than there was previously, or greater than the risk in flying over Afghanistan, Pakistan or a various other countries.

A crystal ball would be a wonderful investment for every airline - if only they could find one that was guaranteed foolproof.

The discussion in my post had moved from past to present/future.

Setting aside however airlines conducted their operations prior to the downing of MH17, all airlines now know it is possible for rebels to sometimes get hold of SAMs.

All airlines know those SAMs could reach 70,000+ feet.

in the absence of proof otherwise, airlines should be assuming both of the above. They should work to prove it is safe, rather than waiting for someone to tell them it's not safe. The old 'it'll be ok' may no longer apply.

I would therefore expect any airline flying over ISIS territory, the reason they are doing so is because they have proof there are no SAMs. The bit about flying 38-41,000 feet is irrelevant if they don't know the SAM capability.

 

[mannej]

I would therefore expect any airline flying over ISIS territory, the reason they are doing so is because they have proof there are no SAMs. The bit about flying 38-41,000 feet is irrelevant if they don't know the SAM capability.

Quick question - how long have ISIS been around and a threat for?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Quick question - how long have ISIS been around and a threat for?

The potential threat became forseeable on the day of MH17. First step would be to discount ISIS has no access to SAMs (or other weapon capable of shooting down a jet liner). If they don't have that capability, and can't procure it, then flying at 38,000 may be just fine.

 

[boomy]

But i dare say they do rely on national intelligence experts.

Correct, they rely on any source that is proven to be reliable.
My point was they are not doing the bare minimum like most airlines in terms of security.
MH are in a tough position right now because many people see them as an unsafe airline. It's probably not true and they just suffered from extremely bad luck but it doesn't matter as most people are driven by emotions rather then logic.
The solution in my view is bring back confidence by focusing on safety and they can learn a few things from airlines like LY who are experts in this field.

While they do have such a system installed it is not that clear cut because the system itself is a weapon. Raising the point that civilian aircraft do not carry weapons and a comparison with national owned aircraft that do carry weapons.

LY is not nationally owned, it's a private company backed by the government. They have no problem landing in various airports all over the world despite the "weapons" installed on the planes.
MH is also backed by the government so they can afford investing in extra security. It will be great marketing for them to say they decided to install an anti-missile system on their planes to avoid any future incidents.

 

[medhead]

Correct, they rely on any source that is proven to be reliable.
My point was they are not doing the bare minimum like most airlines in terms of security.
MH are in a tough position right now because many people see them as an unsafe airline. It's probably not true and they just suffered from extremely bad luck but it doesn't matter as most people are driven by emotions rather then logic.
The solution in my view is bring back confidence by focusing on safety and they can learn a few things from airlines like LY who are experts in this field.

The discussion was around not using any third party information. Using external information has been stated as being a problem. With the greatest respect to all, the national group of intelligence experts I referred to in my previous post are not really about safety either. I would also note your possibly disparaging comment about so-called experts. Not even sure why that was used.

LY is not nationally owned, it's a private company backed by the government. They have no problem landing in various airports all over the world despite the "weapons" installed on the planes.
MH is also backed by the government so they can afford investing in extra security. It will be great marketing for them to say they decided to install an anti-missile system on their planes to avoid any future incidents.

The uncertainty remains. Civilian aircraft are not armed, in general. Don't get me wrong I think the system is a great idea.

As I've previously posted on this very system, I'm not sure how spending many 10s of thousands of dollars would stack up for an airline that doesn't spend a fee dollars a flight on position tracking (or whatever it was)

 

[drron]

An interview with one of the first observers on the scene-
Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site - World - CBC News

 

[boomy]

I would also note your possibly disparaging comment about so-called experts. Not even sure why that was used.

If you really want to know I was thinking about the latest decision by the experts at the FAA to recommend not flying to TLV, although local experts said it's safe and the national airline operated as usual. This decision was retracted soon after with absolutely no new information arriving in, making it a clearly wrong decision in the first place.

The uncertainty remains. Civilian aircraft are not armed, in general. Don't get me wrong I think the system is a great idea.

Well, civilian aircrafts are also not being shot down by missiles, in general.
The decision made by LY to install the system came after an attempt to shoot down one of it's planes in 2002. They didn't wait for it to actually happen before doing something about this potential threat.

 

[medhead]

If you really want to know I was thinking about the latest decision by the experts at the FAA to recommend not flying to TLV, although local experts said it's safe and the national airline operated as usual. This decision was retracted soon after with absolutely no new information arriving in, making it a clearly wrong decision in the first place.

Thanks for the explanation.

Well, civilian aircrafts are also not being shot down by missiles, in general.
The decision made by LY to install the system came after an attempt to shoot down one of it's planes in 2002. They didn't wait for it to actually happen before doing something about this potential threat.

I'd guess they also face a threat based on different technology at limited phrases of the flight. MH17 was confronted by different technology that could have been used at any altitude. Certainly seems to be an escalation of threat capability.

 

[anat0l]

The decision made by LY to install the system came after an attempt to shoot down one of it's planes in 2002. They didn't wait for it to actually happen before doing something about this potential threat.

I'm sure if that attempt had succeeded they still would have installed the system, but we would be evaluating LY potentially in a very different way (or not, given certain cultural and political prejudices).

LY has been a prime target for terrorists for donkey's years, let alone also being banned from most Arab / Muslim airspaces. That is why they have all of those various security measures in place (including preventions against hijackings) which I don't think are necessarily conducive to attracting a market (notwithstanding that travel to Israel is a captive market). I'm not sure people would be enamoured with turning up to the airport 3 hrs in advance to be screened and profiled (much more thorough and discriminatory than what people already see as "invasive" or "ballet").

MH was not a prime target and actively sought to be shot down (at least the predominant theory is that at the moment and the specific plane was not shot down on purpose). Big difference.

I wonder would an active countermeasure system really work and could it be veritable that it would have averted MH17 if installed (even if the two pilots were ex-air force). You would certainly need to train pilots heavily in use of the system with the predisposition that at any time their aircraft may be a missile target. Also a civilian aircraft is not a fighter jet. I'm not sure how that works on LY aircraft or Air Force One.....

 

[boomy]

LY has been a prime target for terrorists for donkey's years, let alone also being banned from most Arab / Muslim airspaces. That is why they have all of those various security measures in place (including preventions against hijackings)

The US airlines are also in the same boat (being or not being banned from Arab airspaces is not that relevant). Most of them don't invest that much in security and I'm not even talking about security in some US airports which was beyond shocking prior to the 9/11 attacks.

MH was not a prime target and actively sought to be shot down (at least the predominant theory is that at the moment and the specific plane was not shot down on purpose). Big difference.

They were not the prime target and it could have happened to any other civilian plane flying over that region. I'm not 100% sure those animals didn't want to shoot down a civilian plane but it doesn't matter that much. In my opinion this is a growing threat that should get more focus because it will happen again, it's just a matter of time.
Investing in extra security requires money and training, something most flag carriers can organise.